franciosa stay denial

8/9/2019 Franciosa Stay Denial

1/5

IN TH E COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIACIVIL DIVISIONCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIAEX REL.,

Plaintiff,

RON ANGLE,

No. C-48-CV-2009-13699

Defendant.ORDER OF COURT ->

AND NOW, this /$day of June, 2010, upon consideration of the Defendant 'sapplication for a stay/supersedeas of this Court's Order of June 4, 2010, it is hereby ORDEREDthat the application is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth below.

1 . The Defendant's prohibition from participation in official Northam pton County Councilproceedings as the representative from District 4, while he is in violation of Section 104of the Hom e Rule Charter, remains in effect pursuant to the June 4, 2010 Order of Court.

2. The Defendant's forfeiture of his position as the County Council representative fromDistrict 4 is stayed, pending the final disposition of the Defendant's appeal of this Court'sJune 4, 2010 Opinion and Order of Court.

3. Northampton County Council shall refrain from declaring the Defendant's CountyCouncil position "vacant" until after the final disposition of the Defendant 's appeal.

STATEMENT OF REASONSThis m atter is before the Court on the Def end ant 's application for a stay/supersedeas of

this Cou rt's Order dated June 4, 2010, which grants the Defendan t ten (10) days to cure his


2/5

of Section 104 of the Hom e Rule Charter of Northam pton County ("HRC"),


3/5

(4) the issuance of a stay will not adversely affect the public interest. \Pennsylvania Public Utility Com 'n v. Process Gas Consumers Group, 467 A.2d 81983); Ma ritrans G.P. Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, 573 A .2d 1001 (Pa. 1W e will begin with the reasoning behind our denial of the Defendant's application

stay with respect to his ability to continue to participate in County Cou ncil during the penof his appeal. As m entioned above, we perform ed a searching an alysis befor e arriving atconclusion that the Defendant is currently in violation of Section 104 the Home Rule Chavirtue of his simultaneous occupation of the positions of County Council and School Direthe Bang or Area School District in Northam pton C ounty. Having reached th is conclusionfollows that granting a stay to permit th e Defendant to continue to participate in County Ccould adversely affect th e public interest and expose th e citizens of Northampton Countysubstantial harm .

To begin, the citizens of Northam pton Coun ty voted to enact the HRC via referenwould frustrate the will of the No rtham pton Coun ty voters if this Court w ere to perm it thDefendant to continue to participate in County Council while he is in violation of the HRCaddition, while we will do not wish to engage in idle speculation with regard to the fullramifications of this determ ination, it is conceivable that the De fenda nt's participation in Council proceedings w hile in violation of Section 104 could im plicate the va lidity of thosproceedings. Accordingly, we conclude that the Defend ant cannot satisfy the third and foprongs of the test for a stay with respect to his ability to continue to pa rticipate in CountyCouncil during th e appeal period.


4/5

We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with respect to the Defendant's forfeituhis position under Section 107 of the HRC. At the outset, we note that we are required to aflexible standard to the requirement that the Defendant show that he is likely to prevail on tmerits on his appeal. Se e Pennsylvania Public Utility Com 'n v. Process Gas Consumers G467 A.2d 805, 809 (Pa. 1983). Otherwise, it would be extremely unlikely that the reviewincourt, which has just rendered an adverse decision, would find that it is likely that its orderbe reversed on the merits. Id .

In this case, our determination that the Defendant is in violation of Section 104 of thHRC is based upon the application of principles of statutory interpretation to an otherwiseambiguous statutory provision. While we are confident that our analysis is correct, we musallow for the possibility tha t th e Pennsylvania Suprem e Court could reach a different conclIn this regard, we note that two former solicitors for County Council reached opposingconclusions with regard to the proper interpretation of the precise statutory language at issuthis case. Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that the Defendant has satisfied theprong of the test.

Turning to the second prong of the test, we conclude that the Defendant would suffeirreparable injury absent a stay on his forfeiture of his position with C ounty Council. Inparticular, the Defenda nt could face a cum bersome reinstatem ent process if our Order is revafter Coun ty Council has filled the Defendant's vacancy. Such a result would also harm thevoters from District 4, who elected the Defendant at the municipal election in November of2007.


5/5

With regard to the third prong and fourth prongs, we find that a stay would notsubstantially harm other interested parties in the proceeding, such as the citizens of Northam ptonCounty and the remaining members of County Council. While not expressly provided for in theHRC, we take judicial notice of the fact that County Council has in the past operated for aconsiderable period w ith an unfilled vacancy. Any resulting reduction in the effectiveness ofCounty Council as a result of the Defenda nt's absence is offset by the elim ination of thepossibility that the Defendant's presence at and participation in County Council proceedingswhile in violation of the HRC could render those proceedings void.

BY THE COURT:

Michael V. Franciosa, SJ

franciosa stay denial

Documents